I understand and to some extent even appreciate the draw of flawless FDC ancients, but the allure of imperfection is often even stronger for me. This Philip III hemidrachm which recently joined my collection is a case in point. It's reasonably well-struck and preserved, but I wouldn't even have bid on it were it not for the seismic flan flaw on the reverse. Apart from not marring any of the devices significantly, it actually altered my perception of the tableaux by making it appear as if Zeus is seated in the mouth of a cave. I just thought that was pretty cool . Feel free to post your Philip IIIs, smaller Alexander types, or a coin you bought because of (as opposed to in spite of) its flaws. KINGDOM OF MACEDON Philip III Arrhidaios AR Hemidrachm 2.08g, 13.8mm In the name and types of Alexander III Uncertain mint in Cilicia, struck under Philoxenos, circa 320-318/7 BC Price 2962 O: Head of Herakles right, wearing lion skin. R: AΛEΞAN∆POY, Zeus Aëtophoros seated left; ΦI in left field, ΛΣ below throne.
Sweet!! => I love your artistic-eye for a cool ancient-addition (congrats) Yes, I also love the looks of your gnarly, but awesome new cave-example (it is very cool) Ummm, my only Alex-III example is my recent fourree score (also a very cool coin) KINGS of MACEDON. Philip III Arrhidaios. Fourrée Fifth Tetradrachm 323-317 BC Copying Amphipolis mint issue struck under Polyperchon, circa 318–317 BC Diameter: 13 mm Weight: 1.94 grams Obverse: Head of Apollo right, wearing tainia Reverse: Youth on horseback right; shield below Reference: For prototype, cf. Le Rider pl. 46, 29 & 32; cf. Troxell, Studies, Group 8, 382; cf. SNG ANS 731-5 Other: 8h … toned, breaks in plating exposing bronze core
Nice! I haven't moved into picking up fourrees (on purpose) , but when I do this is exactly what I'd be looking for.
The flan flaw is huge but doesn't really distract from the well-struck devices. Not the easiest denomination to find-- nice!!
Great coin! It really does look like Zeus is seated in front of a mountain, Olympus no doubt. That's a helluva lot of detail for a 14mm coin!
The current fad is very condition centered to the point that coins may as well not exist in some minds if they are not FDC. 200 years ago, rarity was more important and a collection was 'better' if it contained the greatest possible number of varieties. I frequently buy coins because I like something others would consider a fault. Examples: Many coins have a test cut which is considered a fault but having three starts adding interest to my way of thinking. Do holes work that way, too??? I have many fourrees but prefer ones with core exposure that follows a pattern that highlights details rather than destroying it. The coin below is both doublestruck and a reverse die clash. This proves that the clash damage was on the die rather than what some people believe to be a restruck brockage. To me, this is a very interesting coin far beyond a sum of its parts. These are all technical oddities which is one of my specialty interests in collecting. None of these can be FDC since that term excludes oddity. Of course even technical coins come in 'grades' considering factors like the placement of cuts and holes, surface condition of fourrees and general eye appeal of all coins.
I can easily appreciate why all the posted coins ---and the OP Hemidrachm---were purchased BECAUSE of their imperfections...I'd have done the same myself!! This post is less a purchase because of the imperfections but despite them...and it was quite cheap LOL Domitia fourree:
...and how could I forget the one coin I purchased specifically for what it is----Legionary Brockage:
what a neat little coin Z! i have the drachm sized version.. looks like your is probably in high relief as well...
Well, that had been my initial belief, but it appears even more probable that it was 'holed' to indicate that it was 'bad silver' or a fourree.
